The Great Defector wrote:I think the episode 8 is my favorite. Though I think that's just because it was so beautiful shot......on another note did anyone else miss Laura's name being called before she screamed? I missed it.

Partway through the series, I took to watching it with the captions on. There's a LOT of sub-audible stuff happening.

The Modernist wrote:People like to credit Lynch with incredible mastery of everything he does and so read intentionality into everything he does. But I think Lynch and Frost went down a rabbit hole with this one and in the end only had a muddled idea of how to resolve it. Hence the frequent recourse to Deus ex Machina throughout the whole thing (the convenient introduction of doppelgangers/tulpas to explain events or kill off or introduce characters, the numerous hints that 'it's all a dream). In many ways I think they became intoxicated with the whole lore of Twin Peaks which gave them carte blanche to really indulge themselves, but a certain purity of purpose was lost as a result.

(my emphasis)

But this notion suggests that Lynch/Frost were just making the whole thing up as they were going along, when it fact it was clearly a meticulously crafted construction. I'm not "reading" intentionality into the series, just noting that ambiguity or even inscrutability are deliberate.

And to an earlier point you made, my understanding is that yes, the network gave L/F free rein, creatively.

Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

The Modernist wrote:People like to credit Lynch with incredible mastery of everything he does and so read intentionality into everything he does. But I think Lynch and Frost went down a rabbit hole with this one and in the end only had a muddled idea of how to resolve it.

(my emphasis)

But this notion suggests that Lynch/Frost were just making the whole thing up as they were going along, when it fact it was clearly a meticulously crafted construction. I'm not "reading" intentionality into the series, just noting that ambiguity or even inscrutability are deliberate.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. The conclusion was clearly what he wanted to do and there was plenty of foreshadowing, there were plenty of little clues and suggestive moments... but whether everything was tied together satisfactorily, plotwise, is open for discussion. There were quite a few dead ends, loose threads and confusing leaps of logic all the same.

Copehead wrote:I have met Gruff Rhys - although he claimed he wasn't and that he couldn't speak Welsh, as I spoke to him in Welsh, but it was him lying bastard.

The Modernist wrote:People like to credit Lynch with incredible mastery of everything he does and so read intentionality into everything he does. But I think Lynch and Frost went down a rabbit hole with this one and in the end only had a muddled idea of how to resolve it.

(my emphasis)

But this notion suggests that Lynch/Frost were just making the whole thing up as they were going along, when it fact it was clearly a meticulously crafted construction. I'm not "reading" intentionality into the series, just noting that ambiguity or even inscrutability are deliberate.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. The conclusion was clearly what he wanted to do and there was plenty of foreshadowing, there were plenty of little clues and suggestive moments... but whether everything was tied together satisfactorily, plotwise, is open for discussion. There were quite a few dead ends, loose threads and confusing leaps of logic all the same.

There's no denying that. I just have to assume that that was the creators' intent.

Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

It might have been but - and I've said this a few times on this thread now! - for me it's a recurring problem with Lynch, that he is much more of an ideas man than a storyteller, which is fine in its way but which does lead to him taking easy options with his plotting or things getting silly or jumbled.Even though this series was so brilliantly put together and so full of connections and winks, we still had random deus ex machina moments - oh, suddenly the Giant can just pluck Bad Coop up and plonk him somewhere to get killed? Why was he going to the coordinates in the first place if that's all that would happen? - and things that just vaguely fizzled out (pretty much everything to do with Richard Horne).

Copehead wrote:I have met Gruff Rhys - although he claimed he wasn't and that he couldn't speak Welsh, as I spoke to him in Welsh, but it was him lying bastard.

PENK wrote:It might have been but - and I've said this a few times on this thread now! - for me it's a recurring problem with Lynch, that he is much more of an ideas man than a storyteller, which is fine in its way but which does lead to him taking easy options with his plotting or things getting silly or jumbled.Even though this series was so brilliantly put together and so full of connections and winks, we still had random deus ex machina moments - oh, suddenly the Giant can just pluck Bad Coop up and plonk him somewhere to get killed? Why was he going to the coordinates in the first place if that's all that would happen? - and things that just vaguely fizzled out (pretty much everything to do with Richard Horne).

That stuff is frustrating, I agree.

Sometimes I think the intent with that kind of thing is to reflect how real life is messy and full of unresolved or unsatisfying conclusions -- or no conclusions at all. But I still go back and forth about whether that's a good basis for an effective narrative or anything to premise a story on. And what does David Lynch care about "real life" anyway?

Although I like ambiguity in TV/film, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I want everything all wrapped up in a pretty bow at the end, so I may just have been defending Lynch/Frost from Modernist's charges of sloppiness more out of a sense of duty than of actually relishing the condition of all those loose ends by the end of the series.

Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

Snarfyguy wrote:Lynch, in 1990: “As soon as a show has a sense of closure, it gives you an excuse to forget you’ve seen the damn thing.”

He's not wrong.

Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

PENK wrote:It might have been but - and I've said this a few times on this thread now! - for me it's a recurring problem with Lynch, that he is much more of an ideas man than a storyteller, which is fine in its way but which does lead to him taking easy options with his plotting or things getting silly or jumbled.Even though this series was so brilliantly put together and so full of connections and winks, we still had random deus ex machina moments - oh, suddenly the Giant can just pluck Bad Coop up and plonk him somewhere to get killed? Why was he going to the coordinates in the first place if that's all that would happen? - and things that just vaguely fizzled out (pretty much everything to do with Richard Horne).

That stuff is frustrating, I agree.

Sometimes I think the intent with that kind of thing is to reflect how real life is messy and full of unresolved or unsatisfying conclusions -- or no conclusions at all. But I still go back and forth about whether that's a good basis for an effective narrative or anything to premise a story on. And what does David Lynch care about "real life" anyway?

Although I like ambiguity in TV/film, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I want everything all wrapped up in a pretty bow at the end, so I may just have been defending Lynch/Frost from Modernist's charges of sloppiness more out of a sense of duty than of actually relishing the condition of all those loose ends by the end of the series.

Just to add, I like ambiguity in narratives, I'm not one for neat, reductive resolutions at all. My objection is less to do with wanting neat resolutions than feeling there were too many pointless sub-plots which barely got started, too many characters clogging the thing up and not really adding anything.I suspect once everything has died down, a far more nuanced (and yes critical) judgement on season three will become prevalent.

PENK wrote:It might have been but - and I've said this a few times on this thread now! - for me it's a recurring problem with Lynch, that he is much more of an ideas man than a storyteller, which is fine in its way but which does lead to him taking easy options with his plotting or things getting silly or jumbled.Even though this series was so brilliantly put together and so full of connections and winks, we still had random deus ex machina moments - oh, suddenly the Giant can just pluck Bad Coop up and plonk him somewhere to get killed? Why was he going to the coordinates in the first place if that's all that would happen? - and things that just vaguely fizzled out (pretty much everything to do with Richard Horne).

That stuff is frustrating, I agree.

Sometimes I think the intent with that kind of thing is to reflect how real life is messy and full of unresolved or unsatisfying conclusions -- or no conclusions at all. But I still go back and forth about whether that's a good basis for an effective narrative or anything to premise a story on. And what does David Lynch care about "real life" anyway?

I agree that's the intention. All along they were subverting the audiences desire to see things play out a certain way. So Richard is just zapped and that's it and so on. You may find that unsatisfying but I don't see it as the result of Lynch and Frost not knowing how to end things.

Regarding Bad Cooper he was given three coordinates, no? Two of them were from Ray and Jefferies which led to the rock and the other one was from Briggs which led to the white lodge. Al three were traps essentially with the third one leading to the sheriffs station after the Giant had given Andy the information he needed so he would know that this was Bad Cooper.

I think this clip raises some valid points about the sociological commentary within the show.

With all the talk over the meaning of the ending this has been overlooked somewhat but will be discussed more in time as people go back and analyse the show I suspect. I think the more random characters and moments (Steven, the zombie kid, the kid with the gun who shoots at the diner, the lass with the itchy armpit etc) fit into this larger narrative about decline, a world gone wrong.

Minnie the Minx wrote:

Copehead wrote:Just average, innocent people who have moved on to land stolen from Palestinian families.

Any more thoughts on the show, any revelations? Anyone watch it again?

Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model